Pandora’s Box: The Real Dangers Of The Gene Technology Bill

New Zealand at a dangerous turning point

Right now, Parliament is considering the Gene Technology Bill (2024) – a bill that would replace the 1996 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act when it comes to genetic engineering and end nearly 30 years of New Zealand’s GE-free status. The Government says the bill will “enable the safe use of gene technology”, citing potential benefits for health, productivity, and climate resilience. But more than 15,000 public submissions have been received, most voicing serious concern over the risks this legislation poses to our environment, our farmers, and our identity as a clean, green island nation.1, 2

If passed, the Bill would allow genetically engineered organisms to be released into the environment for the first time since the 1990s. [In the 1990s there were a number of field tests, where GM plants and animals were grown/farmed outside, but only under very “strict” conditions]. Once released, these organisms can reproduce, spread, e.g. via pollen or seed, contaminating existing non-GE crops and other organisms, and mutate. They cannot be recalled. What is at stake is not just the regulation of a range of scientific techniques, but also the protection of our food supply, biodiversity, and international reputation.

New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that can still market itself as GE-free and organic, with strong consumer trust and a natural geographic advantage as an island. This legislation puts all of that at risk.

Who really benefits?

The Gene Technology Bill introduces a new “Gene Technology Regulator” and a risk-tiered approval system. 3 Supporters include large agritech and biotech companies – many headquartered overseas – who see New Zealand as an untapped test bed for genetic engineering.

According to GE Free NZ, the Bill “threatens New Zealand’s reputation for clean, safe, GMO-free food” and could undermine the nation’s organic and export sectors.4 The group points out that no clear liability framework exists for contamination events: if a GE organism drifts onto a non-GE or organic farm, the affected grower, not the corporation, would bear the cost of testing and potential loss of certification.5

The pattern is familiar. In the United States, Monsanto (now Bayer) pushed genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops that were sold alongside glyphosate herbicide, vastly increasing chemical use while delivering no real yield benefit.6 Farmers became dependent on patented seeds, consumers lost transparency, and ecosystems suffered. The Gene Technology Bill risks putting New Zealand on the same path.

How New Zealand became GE-free

Public opposition to genetic engineering dates back to the 1970s, when concerns about safety and contamination first arose. Following years of protest, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act was passed in 1996, creating the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) to strictly control all genetic modification activities.7

In 2000, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification recommended New Zealand should “proceed with caution” and avoid releasing GE organisms into the environment.8 That same spirit guided a voluntary moratorium and ongoing containment of GE research to laboratories.

In 2014, the High Court ruled that gene editing is a form of genetic modification and must remain regulated. Since then, regions including Northland, Hastings, and Auckland have declared themselves officially GE-free zones, enshrined in their district plans.9

This careful, principled approach has protected not just our land but also our brand. Consumers around the world trust New Zealand produce precisely because of its GE-free integrity.

Lessons from past contamination

We have been here before – and we have learned how costly mistakes can be.

In 2000, the “Corngate” scandal erupted when genetically modified corn seeds were suspected of contaminating crops in Gisborne and Pukekohe. The Corngate episode exposed confusion over agency responsibilities and raised public concerns about transparency, with claims of government obfuscation during the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.10

Just two years later, Operation Pacific confirmed that maize grown from imported seed had tested positive for GE contamination. The hybrid seed had to be destroyed at a cost of $500,000, and even then, complete containment could not be guaranteed.11

Government investigations found overlapping responsibilities and lack of technical expertise among agencies. Border testing and monitoring were improved, yet officials acknowledged that 100% assurance of safety is impossible.12

If containment failed under the strictest laws, why would weakening those laws now be safer?

What scientists are saying

Professor David Williams, a New Zealander working on gene therapy at UCLA, has warned that the Bill is “unfair to farmers” and based on false assumptions about precision and safety. He points to well-documented “off-target effects” of CRISPR and other gene-editing tools, including chromosomal deletions and genomic instability.13

Despite decades of hype, only three GE crops – corn, soy, and cotton – dominate world production, showing limited benefit to farmers or consumers.14 Much of that corn is not even food; it becomes ethanol for fuel or feed for feedlots.

Williams also warns that loosening New Zealand’s laws could wipe out the export premiums farmers receive for GMO-free livestock and produce. He poses the question that if gene-edited ryegrass or maize were to be released how would non-GE farmers protect their land from contamination?15

The organic sector and consumer rights

Noel Josephson, Organics Aotearoa New Zealand Board Member and Cere’s Organics Co-Founder and Director says, ‘‘We may think we can solve a problem through genetic technology, but more likely, we are deepening the damage through this thinking that we can control nature. A precautionary element must always prevail to protect the future of the earth for the generations to come.’’16

New Zealand’s organic sector contributes hundreds of millions to the economy and depends on consumer trust. Cross-pollination or seed drift from GE crops could void organic certification and destroy that trust overnight.

In the US, even certified organic producers now pay for additional “Non-GMO Project” verification labels – an unnecessary cost that GE-free New Zealand has so far avoided.17

Groups like No Harm to Food are calling on Kiwis to protect their right to know what’s in their food, warning that the Bill could weaken labelling rules for gene-edited products. Their petition and MP-writing guide help citizens take direct action.18

Animal welfare, health, and environmental concerns

The Gene Technology Bill also opens the door to gene-editing animals and wild species, including proposed applications for pest control under Predator Free 2050. Scientists caution that such releases could cause unpredictable chain reactions in ecosystems. Once altered genes enter the wild, they cannot be contained or reversed.19

The risks of gene editing in the wild are not just theoretical. This month, members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) voted against a moratorium on releasing genetically engineered wild species - instead adopting a policy that normalises the use of “synthetic biology” in conservation. Critics warn this is a dangerous precedent that could legitimise genetic manipulation of wild ecosystems under the guise of innovation. As Beyond GM reported, the vote was “a turning point that many see as a betrayal of conservation’s first principles”, signalling that even some global conservation institutions are succumbing to biotech lobbying rather than upholding the precautionary approach nature requires.20

Gene-edited animals may suffer unintended mutations, developmental defects or other adverse welfare outcomes; meanwhile, New Zealand’s current regulatory and monitoring framework lacks clearly defined mechanisms for specifically overseeing the welfare consequences of genome-edited livestock. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Environmental advocates, including the group No More Glyphosate, warn that GE agriculture tends to increase chemical dependence, not reduce it.26 The promise of “climate-smart biotech” may simply mean more patented seeds and more herbicide use.

The island advantage – and the risk of losing it

New Zealand’s isolation provides natural biosecurity that few nations can match. Remaining GE-free gives us a competitive advantage in organics, biodiversity protection, and eco-tourism.

Once released, GE organisms cannot be recalled. Our clean-green image and high-value export markets depend on upholding that line.

If the Bill passes, New Zealand could become a testing ground for multinational biotech interests, surrendering its global brand for short-term profits. Instead, we could lead the world in regenerative, organic, and low-input agriculture, living up to the promise of being truly 100% pure.

What you can do

The future of New Zealand’s food and environment will be decided in the coming months. Here’s how you can help:

• Write to your MP, Minister, or Party – find templates, links and other steps to take action on the OANZ website 26
• Join the peaceful protest: Tuesday 4 November 2025 | 11:30 am – 2 pm | Parliament Steps, Wellington.

Your voice matters. Politicians need to hear that New Zealanders want to protect our GE-free legacy.

A call to protect what makes us unique

This Bill is not a small technical reform. It represents a fundamental shift in how we treat life itself – from respecting natural limits to editing genes at will.

History has shown that deregulation favours corporate profit, not public good. Once released, GE organisms cannot be recalled: it is a warning worth heeding.

Aotearoa’s strength lies in our clean soil, healthy food, and trusted brand. If we surrender that, we cannot get it back. The Gene Technology Bill risks everything that makes us who we are.

Now is the time to stand up, speak out, and keep New Zealand GE-free – for our people, our animals, and our land.

References:

1. ‘Kiwi Gene therapy scientist’s warning over GMO bill’, https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018979315/kiwi-gene-therapy-scientist-s-warning-over-gmo-bill
2. ‘All eyes (and ears) on the gene tech bill, https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/23/all-eyes-and-ears-on-the-gene-technology-bill
3. ‘Gene Technology Bill’, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0110/latest/whole.html
4. ‘The Gene Technology Bill Hearing and Update’, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0110/latest/whole.html
5. ‘The spread of GE DNA in the environment’, https://www.gehonesty.nz/liability
6. ‘Kiwi Gene therapy scientist’s warning over GMO bill’, https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018979315/kiwi-gene-therapy-scientist-s-warning-over-gmo-bill
7. ‘The history of GE in New Zealand’, https://organicnz.org.nz/magazine-articles/the-history-of-ge-in-new-zealand/
8. ‘The history of GE in New Zealand’, https://organicnz.org.nz/magazine-articles/the-history-of-ge-in-new-zealand/
9. ‘The history of GE in New Zealand’, https://organicnz.org.nz/magazine-articles/the-history-of-ge-in-new-zealand/
10. ‘All eyes (and ears) on the gene tech bill, https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/23/all-eyes-and-ears-on-the-gene-technology-bill
11. ‘All eyes (and ears) on the gene tech bill, https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/23/all-eyes-and-ears-on-the-gene-technology-bill
12. ‘All eyes (and ears) on the gene tech bill, https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/23/all-eyes-and-ears-on-the-gene-technology-bill
13. ‘Kiwi Gene therapy scientist’s warning over GMO bill’, https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018979315/kiwi-gene-therapy-scientist-s-warning-over-gmo-bill
14. ‘Kiwi Gene therapy scientist’s warning over GMO bill’, https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018979315/kiwi-gene-therapy-scientist-s-warning-over-gmo-bill
15. ‘Kiwi Gene therapy scientist’s warning over GMO bill’, https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018979315/kiwi-gene-therapy-scientist-s-warning-over-gmo-bill
16. https://www.oanz.org/new-blog/ge-a-science-that-decries-life-by-noel-josephson ‘Kiwi Gene therapy scientist’s warning over GMO bill’, https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018979315/kiwi-gene-therapy-scientist-s-warning-over-gmo-bill
17. https://www.noharmtofood.nz
18. ‘All eyes (and ears) on the gene tech bill, https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/23/all-eyes-and-ears-on-the-gene-technology-bill
19. ‘IUCN votes on gene editing in conservation: Biotech lobbyists ‘win’, nature loses’, https://beyond-gm.org/iucn-votes-on-gene-editing-in-conservation-biotech-lobbyists-win-nature-loses
20. ‘The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature’, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6452271
21. ‘What are the animal welfare issues with genetic modification of farm animals?’, https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-are-the-animal-welfare-issues-with-genetic-modification-of-farm-animals
22. ‘The Protection of Selectively Bred and Gene Edited Farm Animals under EU Law’, https://ges.research.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Cimadori-et-al.-Gene-edited-animals-2025.pdf
23. ‘Gene Editing: Legal and Regulatory Implications’, https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Gene-Editing-Legal-and-regulatory-implications-DIGITAL.pdf
24. ‘Animal Welfare Amendment Act (No 2) 2015’, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0049/latest/whole.html
25. https://nomoreglyphosate.nz
26. Organic Aotearoa New Zealand Tool Kit, https://www.oanz.org/gefree-future-activation-toolkit

© Scoop Media